Monday, April 24, 2006

Letter from faculty to AMSOL community

The following letter was distributed late last week by members of the AMSOL faculty. (To view full-size, hold cursor over letter and click on small icon on bottom right to enlarge).



44 Comments:

At 6:46 PM, Blogger mSCIENCE said...

This may have slipped through the blogger cracks, but I thought it interesting.

"Ave Maria founder helping to start bank"
March 14, 2006
http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/mar/14/ave_maria_founder_helping_start_b ank/

So, here we have a Florida developer (Monaghan) starting a bank that will likely fund businesses in his development... a developer who sits as Chairman of AMSoL and has the ability to cripple the school if it doesn't move to his development.

The article does not state the most interesting part of Monaghan's bank. The bank's chairman (Paul Roney) is also the CFO for the Ave Maria Foundation, and the person who runs the finances for all Ave schools, including AMSoL.

What is the relationship of this bank to the Ave Maria Foundation and, subsequently, AMSoL? Will AMSoL use Monaghan's bank to fund the move to his development in Florida?

Monaghan may be using AMSoL to bolster his invests in Florida. In Catholic World Report (Aug. 2004, bold added), AMSoL, AMC, and AMU Board member Fr. Fessio said "[Tom] said that if the college [AMC] moved to Florida - which was where he now wanted to exercise his philanthropy - it would have free land.."

This lends credence to the notion that the Naples area (not AMSL nor the 'mission' of AMSL) is the primary object of "where he now wanted to exercise his philanthropy"... and that Ave schools are being used in support of that primary objective.

Remember, before Monaghan was given land by Barron Collier in exchange for university-area development rights, Monaghan first tried to BUY land in Florida for AMU. Free land is not why AMSL is going to Florida.

 
At 11:45 PM, Blogger Indy Mike said...

Anyone seen what the faculty submitted to the BOG?

 
At 11:17 AM, Blogger percy said...

How do our dissenting friends like realitycheck, informationoverliad, and cuckoo respond to this? Are the faculty, like the students and alumni, a bunch of irrational, disgruntled sore-losers, who do not trust God's will and represent only a vocal minority?

 
At 3:49 PM, Blogger Advocatus Militaris said...

Percy,

Simply put, they have their heads in their asses! "God's will" is convenient to throw around if you are a pie-in-the-sky-isn't-it-great-we're-all-Catholic nerd like these clowns seem to be.

Let's cut through the crap. Somthing is rotting at Ave Maria.

Caritas non conturbat me.

 
At 3:51 PM, Blogger Advocatus Militaris said...

See thelawdawg's comment under the Kate O'Beirne piece. Enough.

 
At 4:18 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

Gosh Advo...

You've won me over with your kind understanding and open-mindedness! I guess I do have my head up my ass! How could I have been so stupid as to doubt you!

If there is something wrotten at AMSoL, its sitting in front of your computer.

Deus Caritas Est!

 
At 4:29 PM, Blogger AMSOL Pioneer said...

info-

Your handle is apt. You strain the limits of charity when you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge to real problems many are trying to resolve.

We all must be careful to make sure our words and actions are oriented for the good. For example, I would love to start working on a number of thoughts that have occured to me, involving making lives miserable for the Dean's toadies. But I refrain because doing so would be malicious.

HOWEVER, don't go slinging around accusations of uncharitability against those you've willfully pissed off, and don't persist in pretending the problem exists in everybody else.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.

 
At 5:05 PM, Blogger Advocatus Militaris said...

Info,

You do indeed have your head up your ass! You have served up a tendentious entree of SUCKING UP to the Dean, the BOG and their talking points. One wonders if you might be an apologist of sorts? While hiding behind the "I'll take the high road by stating that I haven't taken sides yet because the feasibility study isn't done yet," betrays the cowardly worm that you really are!

Ad hominem, you are damn right. So be courageous good sir, tell us your side and extract that skull of yours.

By the way, true love means doing what is best for the other. Since we love our school, we are doing what is best for all all involved and we are not hiding behind the old Rodney King admonition.

 
At 8:43 PM, Blogger Advocatus Militaris said...

Pardon the grammatical errors above. But you get the message.

 
At 10:01 PM, Blogger Wolfe Tone 2007 said...

Dear Information Overload (is this supposed to inspire sympahty?):

I'm sorry that you were duped by the confusing and misleading student resolution. I really hope that you had an opportunity to retract your name.

As for the rabble rousers who bullied you into signing (and then presumably took your milk money), I suggest that you ask one of them if you can count the number of signatories, if you have any doubts as to its numbers. I just hope that your math is better than your reading comprehension.

Just keep your head down and you won't get hurt.

Amat victoria curam

 
At 10:22 PM, Blogger current2L said...

Dear Jerks,
All that Info is trying to say is that he's not ready to light the funeral pyre for AMSoL just yet. He is obviously a current student, and is just as invested in the school as the rest of us. It has become clear to me that BD and TM have begun to infiltrate the blogs, but Info is not in the same camp. Like me, he probably just doesn't want to contribute to the continued deterioration of the school that we all witness on a daily basis.

Stop your damn name-calling. So what if he doesn't believe in your slash-and-burn tactics, tactics that seem to be the modus-operandi for both sides. Like Info, I did not sign the petition because I personally don't know what is true or false any more. You need to win us with reason, not with painting members of the administration as imps in league with satan. Enough inuendo already. Didn't y'all take Evidence? What is the crime/immorality that the Dean has done? Leave asside issues of a perception of a conflict of interest, tell us for the sake of clarity what he has done wrong.

 
At 11:08 PM, Blogger Torgo said...

Slash and burn?

Have you seen the rest of Monaghan's projects lately?

Soes it not seem odd that they all wind up the same?


Info -- again, despite my having corrected you before, have not looked into the history of the matter. This problem is four years old -- it didn't start this year.

 
At 12:41 AM, Blogger informationoverload said...

advo,

You stated "So be courageous good sir, tell us your side and extract that skull of yours.

By the way, true love means doing what is best for the other. Since we love our school, we are doing what is best for all all involved and we are not hiding behind the old Rodney King admonition."

I am on the side that is not causing unneccessary division at AMSoL. If you desire to define that as cowardess, having my head up my ass, or what ever hatefilled phrase you choose, our numbers are growing.

1. You will not destroy us.
2. You are working in no one's best interest.
3. We would all be much better off without your words of wisdom.
4. We will "just all get along," because the alternative is a torched, desolate, hatefilled AMSoL, much like the city of Angels when Rodney King made his plea.

Torgo,
I've seen a few of Monaghan's projects. They seem to be doing fine, even without your divine guidance. I know the problem didn't start this year. It started with the angel of light choosing darkness out of pride.

Do either of you have the courage to let go of your hate? Or does it define you?

 
At 1:37 AM, Blogger vebnworb13 said...

first, I don't think anyone is being hateful here. yes, emotions are running high and, yes, people are concerned on all sides of the issues, but we ought not say we hate-because none of us do. you have to begin with the assumption that we are all behaving out of love and not hate or spite. no matter what each individual believes the truth is that this is a time for us to come together and learn about ourselves, our peers, our mentors, and our school. With that said it will come as no shock to anyone here that I am upset with our current situation, however some are not. It is true that none of us has all the information, but this is a place where we can gather it and discuss it and that discussion could be more productive and helpful to both sides if we could act as the lawyers and potential lawyers that we are instead of carrying on like high schoolers. If any one wants to discuss the facts or ask questions I would love to hear them. Regadless of how we got here the facts are the alum board voted no confidence, the following day the student petition was turned in which demonstrated that a significant portion of the student body felt the same way, the next evening the faculty resolution was drafted and the faculty voted no confidence. Now the question is: Given these facts what do we do now?

 
At 8:45 AM, Blogger Torgo said...

Information...

You are quite the piece of work. I'd like a pair of those rose colored glasses you're wearing and then maybe some of the pills you're popping to have the outlook you do.

Funny you should say I am providing divine guidance, sort of a heretical view on your part, as I understand it there is only one God in three Divine Persons. As far as I can tell, I am not one of the three. Perhaps you should not worry about us here and go back to reading your catechism.

You have misrepresented yourself as being "on the side that is not causing unneccessary division at AMSoL." Actually, you are on the side causing ALL of the division. It it the move proponents who are dividing the community, not those who desire that the school operate as promised and intended. Please go back to reading the founding of the school and the promises made to donors, students, parents, and the public from 1998 to 2003.

Oh wait, I've told you to do that several times now but you seem to keep avoiding that point. Perhaps it is really you who is the divisive one Information Overload. It is preferable that in charity, you speak with truth, but as you keep avoiding the truth, you are not keeping duty to charity.

If you want to have the high moral ground here, be sure your feet are on rock and not on that sand built up by the destroyers.

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger TheLawDog said...

Info and current 2l,

I respect your opinions, but they can only be opinions of people who are:
a. not fully willing to explore the facts as we know them; or
b. so intent to avoid conflict of any kind that you completely ignore what is before you.

Don't confuse your unwillingness to form an opinion as courage. It is not. You are so worried about the school folding, and getting a bad name, that you willfully ignore the injustice before your eyes. It happened to AMU (and let's not pretend that financial scandals, disgruntled faculty, and students that had to be bought off are small matters) because the constituencies were unprepared and ill-equipped. TM, whether he understands it or not, trampled on people's rights and seriously disrputed the lives of those who gave themselves completely to his work. ALL WITHOUT CONSULTING THEM OR LISTENING TO THEIR VIEWS. He is starting that process with AMSL, and I (and others) will stand up for those who have had their voices ignored. You talk about waiting until the feasibility study is done, but don't you understand? The study will be done in August, and the Board will be voting in September on the move. When are you going to voice your concerns? Think they will be heard? The writing is on the wall, and if you are not willing to stand with the many many good Catholics who oppose the timing and tactics (and not necessarily the move per se) of this whole thing, then at least stop pretending you are taking the high road.

 
At 3:02 PM, Blogger Wolfe Tone 2007 said...

Info,

"Let go of your hate"? Come on. Did you learn to talk like that from Star Wars? And since you're so well versed in Monaghan's business/higher education ventures, check out Drummond Island and St. Mary's...

Current 2L: Stop pretending that this is a courtroom. (i.e. stop thinking like a law student and start thinking like a human being.) There are other battles being waged here where court rules don't apply. The PR battle would be one. It's late in the game, and you're way behind.

Why is it so difficult to ask people to have the courage to stand behind our faculty? (Excuse me, the majority of our faculty.) Now, if you believe that BD & TM are right, well, then by all means, take up the fight. If think the faculty are in the right, then stand by them. But if you just want to stay out of things, keep your head down, and hope that other people take care of the problems that you don't have the guts to face.

 
At 4:52 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

In this episode, I have been told I am wearing rose colored glasses; I am not supporting the faculty, or I lack the courage to do so; I lack the guts to face the problems, etc.

Well, I love the faculty. In fact, I admire their intelligence and their Catholic morals. I am currently supporting them to the tune of about $30,000 per year. You claim that I am for a move to Florida. I am NOT for a move to Florida. I am open-minded, and I trust our distinguished BoG to make an informed and prayerful decision.

With regard to “rose colored glasses,” I would like to point out that the founding faculty, which you and I both admire, left UDM about seven or eight years ago, after “fightin’ the man.” I agree with their principles. However, here we are only six years into the Ave Maria School of Law project, and they are again publicly “fightin’ the man.” This does not look good to me or to the unbiased member of the public. I suspect there aren't many Law Schools that will want to take them on after this. When anyone, such as myself or Kate O’Beirn is remotely hesitant to completely capitulate to the DEMANDS of the faculty, we are publicly told (on this blog) that we have “our head up our ass.”

Quite frankly, that is simply evil, divisive and not what AMSoL’s students, faculty or the administration need. Now, do you have the courage to let go of hate, or are you going to continue to insult Ave Maria School of Law Students like me in order to continue spreading your division?

 
At 5:22 PM, Blogger Torgo said...

"This does not look good to me or to the unbiased member of the public. "

Actually, most people think the idea of moving a law school across country and into a new jurisdiction not only does not look good, but is insane.

Most unbiased people would see an adequate motive to fight such lunacy without much more information, let alone an overload.


"When anyone, such as myself or Kate O’Beirn is remotely hesitant to completely capitulate to the DEMANDS of the faculty, we are publicly told (on this blog) that we have “our head up our ass.”

Another interesting characterization of reality. Nobody asked you to "completelty capitulate" -- they have asked people like O'Bierne not to dismiss as meritless things that have hard evidence in support.

Maybe you want to be Ms. O'Bierne someday, but I'm not sure it was wise to lump yourself with her on perhaps one of her worst gaffes.


"Quite frankly, that is simply evil, divisive and not what AMSoL’s students, faculty or the administration need. Now, do you have the courage to let go of hate, or are you going to continue to insult Ave Maria School of Law Students like me in order to continue spreading your division?"

Yes, the unclear pronoun makes it seem as if you are referencing divisiveness, but as you have mischaracterized what people have asked (don't dismiss claims with real evidence as meritless) as being (totally capitulate to my demands) it is pretty evil that you are the one spreading error about the discussion.

Please get it straight so that we may resume an intelligent discussion, one free from divisive errors as those you keep sowing.

 
At 6:00 PM, Blogger TheLawDog said...

Info,

You want to know the difference between this situation and when the founding faculty were "fightin' the man" at Detroit Mercy? Well, I'll tell you. Dobranksi was on the right side of the fight back then during the period he was dean there. You should ask yourself how he has lost their confidence in so short a time. I can see the motivation for why TM and BD want to conduct the move decision in this fashion. Give me a good reason the founding faculty would put their reputations on the line AGAIN if it was a simple matter of not caring for the swamp? Seems unlikely.

 
At 6:40 PM, Blogger NO man said...

Information,
Here is the critical point that is raised in the letter posted here:

The Board of Governors has a right to have a different opinion than the majority of alumni, faculty, and current students. All three of those constituencies (or their elected representatives) have consistently raised their concerns to the Board and been ignored. Now those constituencies have presented resolutions of no confidence in the dean (or a call for a renewed confidence in leadership). The Alumni Board and Faculty even asked to meet with the BofG and delayed the public release of this information. But instead of exercising their proper duties and at least listening to what the majority of the people who are involved with the day-to-day operations of the school had to say, they simply stuck their heads in the sand yet again.

I know of at least one accrediting body that will not look too favorably upon this, regardless of who is "right" in this dispute.

The Board of Governors are fiddling while Ave Maria Law School is burning to the ground.

 
At 10:57 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

torgo,

Were you there when Kate O'Beirn made her "worst gaffe?" If not, you have no credibility on the issue as you have heard it second hand from others who share your bias.


My Complete capitulation to the faculty's demands is the only way that you will ever agree with me on this issue.

I understand that this blog has been established as a propaganda outlet for those who oppose a move to Florida. However, you are so inflexible and biased in your presentations that your arguement works against itself. Certainly you have taken advocacy and know what I am talking about. When you are as biased as you are on this blog, you lose credibility and end up hurting your own argument.

Example- If you think there is even a possibility that moving to Florida is a good idea, "you have your head up your ass."

Way to go guys. We now know where torgo, thelawdog and no man stand on the issue, how about the rest of the AMSoL community. I am certain, based on the many acts to bring back unity in the school, such as spiritual bouquets, total conseration of the school to Mary and various outward signs, that few people agree with your scorched earth policy, and AMSoL would be better off without such gleefully divisive people.

 
At 11:09 PM, Blogger Anakin Aquinas said...

I'm not gleefully divisive. I pray the rosary every day for the school. Is this blog going to turn into a competition of who prays more?

anyway...

I am wondering, In any other academic Instutution in the United states...if the Faculty had a vote of No Confidence in the Dean, would any of their board of directors ignore such a resolution from the faculty?

I can't think of one

 
At 11:16 PM, Blogger Torgo said...

Information Overload,

It's perhaps better that you just pray about the issue and keep your mouth shut because you appear unable to be responsive to issue with which you are presented.

Yes, pray for the school community. Pray that people being used are compensated. Pray that the man causing the division ceases to destroy. Pray that the promises made are delivered upon. Pray that justice is done.

After all, you keep appealing to justice -- so ought justice be fulfilled?

When you are able to discuss issues, please return.

 
At 11:16 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

A2,

You'll have to research that. Certainly, if the no confidence vote is a veiled jab at the actions of the Board, namely ording a feasibility study, then it is only logical that they would reject the faculty's vote.

Thank you for praying for AMSoL. Please continue.

 
At 11:19 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

torgo,

I understand that anyone who does not think every word you type is gospel should keep their "mouth shut." It's so hard to spread propaganda when someone is challenging you.

 
At 11:22 PM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

I am not sure what INFOOVO means when he talks about division. It's as if there were an abosolute prohibition against divisiveness when matters of principle are at stake. That, however, is precisely at odds with the teaching of our Divine Master and Savior:

"Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..." (Luke 12:51)

The gambit afoot seems pretty clear. The students, faculty and alumni have drawn a line in the sand. The Law School either sheds its Nixonesque Dean (apparently now sequestered away in his office conniving how to snare renegade students and faculty) and gets a BOG that is actually interested in the academic integrity of the institution or it simply implodes.

(The fact that the Dean has not resigned as a gentleman for the good of AMSL in face of the overwhelming rejection of his claim to leadership says more than anything about what is really motivating his actions.)

I came here because it was a place to study law that touted itself as a center of Catholic intellectual life. From what I can tell, there's not much of that around the BOG. If this is how "distinguished" Catholic figures and academics on the BOG (like Egan, George and Bradley) operate in participating in the "unanimous" decisions to ignore all stakeholders, then Catholic intellectual life has indeed taken on a whole new meaning. Give me the secular world any day. It at least has the courtesy to dress like a wolf.

Being pawns in little Tommie Monaghan's orphan spawned ecclesio-mystic-masochistic pulp fiction melodrama is getting really old.

If Monaghan wants to blow the $50 million plus bucks he's "donated", because he can't move it RIGHT NOW to Florida, then so be it. If that's his attitude, God help him. Literally. He has put a lot of individuals and families through agony with his whipsawing whims over the years. His money is useful and could do a lot of good, but is it worth boarding a ship of fools with him in search of the Ponce de Leon fountain of youth in Florida.

One thing, however, is different about the law school. If 300 plus attorneys can't screw up the nutty plans of this Prince John and his Sheriff of Nottingham, our degrees aren't worth the paper their printed on. It would serve the school and its members right to be in Florida with all the other people whose careers are over.

 
At 11:22 PM, Blogger res_ipsa_loquitur said...

IL, earlier you complained that the faculty have no honest input into this debate due to what you alleged to be a "conflict of interest": their desire to keep their jobs and homes in Michigan.

Dude, wake up. Everyone has an "interest" in a debate, or else they wouldn't take sides in it. The faculty has an "interest" in seeing their promise of a world-class law school (with jobs to boot) fulfilled. The alumni have an interest in seeing the value of their degree remain strong. The students have an interest in not having their lives disrupted, having their degrees taken seriously, having stable job opportunities available, etc.

Tom's got "interests," too: his interest in building a successful university in a town that won't shoot down his 250-foot cross idea; his interest in being viewed as the savior of Catholic education; his interest in reaping the benefits of soaring real estate values; etc....

You confuse an "interest" with a "conflict of interest." The latter exists when one enters a fiduciary relationship with one entity that conflicts with the fiduciary duty to another. The faculty have no such conflict. Tom does: he's on the BOG (and some would say he's the de facto owner) of both AMU and AMSOL. In this situation, his interests in building up AMU necessarily conflict with the continued existence of AMSOL.

Can we spell it out any clearer? AMU was tanking in Michigan. AMSOL was, if not thriving, on its way there. AMU stood a theoretical chance in Florida, but Tom believed it necessary to have a world-class law school attached to the university. So it's necessary to transport or re-establish AMSOL in Florida to make that work. However, this would be damaging to AMSOL because 1) the ABA has said this would constitute a "major change" necessitating re-accreditation; 2) AMSOL would lose all its ties to the Michigan legal market, including some presitigious law firm jobs and clerkships; 3) the world-class faculty who made the school what it was don't want to go; 4) neither do the world-class students. Hence, in fulfilling his duties to AMU, he's necessarily harming AMSOL. He's conflicted. The other entities are not. He's not trustworthy. The other entities, while admittedly self-interested (and Tom's not?), are.

Now, if you can properly explain how AMSOL's move to Florida is a brilliant idea, in the school's best interests, and not tied to any form of economic slavery which violates the human dignity of every faculty member, alumnus and student who committed to a school in Michigan, we'll consider your head to be out of your ass.

 
At 11:23 PM, Blogger Torgo said...

information overload,

you are truly gifted at evasive speech.

You are also gifted at attack language while you accuse others of being mean and divisive.

Let me ask you directly a question: If you promise something to another should you deliver the thing promised?

 
At 11:27 PM, Blogger res_ipsa_loquitur said...

And please, let's ignore for the time being the basic exceptions to Torgo's question which we all know are coming. (And what if the king should be assassinated? Am I still liable for the room I rented to watch his coronation?) Let's stick to general principles: outside of mutual mistake or other contract exceptions, is a person bound to keep a promise where reliance is concerned?

 
At 11:29 PM, Blogger Torgo said...

oh now res,

you are too kind to presume that he or she will answer the question.

so far all information overload has done is come in here and call everyone else names. Nothing substantive, nothing relevant to anything, just divisive name calling. Ironically, Information overload is estopped from saying such things by virtue of its own unclean hands, but we'll let it go I suppose.

 
At 12:24 AM, Blogger informationoverload said...

hey fellas,

I gotta tell ya, I have chatted with militant aethists on blogs about theology, often heatedly, and they were more respectful than you.

You are not winning any points with your propaganda. Res has the closest thing I have seen on this blog in months which resembles a credible arguement.

"If you promise something to another, should you deliver the thing promised?"

Yes. Unless new information has come to light which materially alters the meaning of the promise. For example, if I promise to buy the liquor for your party in December and then find out in November that you have been drunk and abusive for the past 6 months and in and out of rehab, it would be unethical to purchase the liquor for your party. You may not like it, but it may be in the best interest of you, your family and friends if I do not buy the liquor for your party.

Is the school's mission and best interest important enough to fully consider all options with an open minde before prematurely taking a divisive and irreversible act?

Amend,

You quoted, "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..." (Luke 12:51)

Be careful. This passage has long been quoted out of context by satanists as justification for causing division in God's people.

And the propaganda continues to ooze from whoseamsol.

 
At 8:09 AM, Blogger Torgo said...

Information Overload,

Perhaps you thought those people were respectful because they weren't bright enough to notice that you don't debate, but rather engage in fallacies and name calling.

Even here, you had to pepper your direct answer with a call to authority and calling us disrespectful.

It's hard to give you a respectful discussion without addressing your irrellevant insults and banter, but because you are the debate expert and the most respectful in the room and the least divisive (self described on all topics), I'm surprised you lower yourself to talk to us low enders -- it must really be painful for you. That is, unless you are pushing your own agenda. Oh wait, you accuse us of doing that, so it couldn't be possible that you have your own that you'd push by attempting to discredit, through whatever means, the side you oppose.

All of that aside, and granting you the benefit of the doubt, you have argued a case for impossibility. That assumes Michigan was impossible.

It wasn't. Quotes given to the public at the time of the announcement for Florida didn't say "they won't let me build the school" but "they won't allow the crucifix". Florida was described as a cornucopia of free land and revenue from development. Maybe it will be, but trace back the comments in the post above this one to two stories from my blog last October that work that idea more.

You also assume that there was no where else in the vicinity to build the school and the crucifix.

Michigan wasn't impossible -- it posed some difficulties, but not impossibility. Furthermore, these same difficulties were known to the promissor when making the promises because the promissor attempted to buy the zoning board out.

Now, next question, do mere difficulties, especially when known to the promissor at the time of making a promise, allow recision of a promise?

 
At 8:59 AM, Blogger mSCIENCE said...

IO asked Is the school's mission and best interest important enough to fully consider all options with an open minde before prematurely taking a divisive and irreversible act?

To answer - "Absolutely!"

Question to you - Is the AMSoL BoG "fully considering ALL options with an open mind" before taking an "irreversible" action like moving to Florida?

 
At 9:22 AM, Blogger res_ipsa_loquitur said...

IO, I apologize for any lack of charity in my postings, perceived or real.

Having said that, I need to remind you that you have an extreme tendency to distract from issues raised by bringing up other issues, often in an inflammatory manner. For example, you never answered Torgo's general question about whether it's proper to keep a promise beyond a curt "yes," followed by a long "but" which wasn't relevant to the topic. (Is AMSOL like an alcoholic which needs to be weaned from an addiction? How does Florida solve this?) Likewise, you responded to my summary of the problem by calling it "the closest thing I have seen on this blog in months which resembles a credible arguement," but still not addressing it.

So bring us back on topic. This blog is devoted to exposing the problems with Monaghan's plan to dismantle and relocate AMSOL. In light of how I outlined the problem, how is it not what it appears to ourselves, and a good chunk of the students, alumni and faculty?

 
At 9:24 AM, Blogger AmenDicoVobis said...

InfoOVO, you wrote:

"You quoted, "Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division; for from now on five members in one household will be divided, three against two, and two against three..." (Luke 12:51) Be careful. This passage has long been quoted out of context by satanists as justification for causing division in God's people."

Is this your response? That is really pathetic. It's not an argument but rather its all prissy insinuation. "Don't drive, some people get hurt." The quote has probably been more often quoted against goose-stepping members of God's people like you who stick thier heads in the sand (a more cordial metaphor) and want to preserve "peace" at any cost, either because they are actually the enemy, or because they hate conflict and are unreasonably wedded to authority. Go kiss Henry the VIII's butt. I'm going with TM --(the other one).

I for one would be in favor of ignoring INFOVO in the future, if he can't offer any arguments. He keeps blabbering on about trust in the distinguised BOG and accusations of division. We've responded to that argument and we should move on.

 
At 9:39 AM, Blogger Torgo said...

wait, wait, wait.

Information Overload is a far superior debater to us. After, he/she/it has debated far more atheists online and they are more respectful than us.

I suggest we learn this new manner of relevancy and debate style and employ it because Information Overload is such a master at it. It is possible, after all, that we are being too hasty to apply our midevil logic and reason to these problems and ought to shoot from the hip and with emotion against out opponents because that makes Infomration Overload the master.

On second thought, maybe not.

Good questions to each of these last posts, but we are being far too disrespectful for our learned, accomplished and honorable opponent in these matters. I'm not sure why such a fine specimen of superior rhetorical tact and balance would waste an iota of such vastly superior intellect responding to us plebs in the gutter, and perhaps it is too much for us to expect a visit from the unbermensch like that. After all, we are nothing more than a band of propagandizing disrespectful insinuated-to-be satanist-sympathizing dividers of the wholy unified world of the ubermensch -- how did we merit such a visit from someone so whole and pure?

 
At 12:04 PM, Blogger The Directors said...

Info,

With all due charity and out of a genuine concern for your future (no kidding), please study. Finals are upon you.

 
At 6:54 PM, Blogger Wolfe Tone 2007 said...

IO wrote: "I gotta tell ya, I have chatted with militant aethists on blogs about theology, often heatedly, and they were more respectful than you.

You are not winning any points with your propaganda. Res has the closest thing I have seen on this blog in months which resembles a credible arguement."

Are you serious? Right is right. The facts speak for themselves here. If you can't stand the heat, get the hell out of the kitchen.

It's time to look in the mirror and say: "Am I a mouse, or a man?" Only you can answer that question.

And FTR: You're not an atheist whom I'm trying to persuade. You're someone who should (and by every indication) does know better. If you don't like the people who are being "mean," don't try to make a martyr of yourself. As I've said before, take cover and try not to get hurt.

 
At 6:58 PM, Blogger Wolfe Tone 2007 said...

PS:
Are those newspaper articles propaganda? Was the faculty's resolution propaganda? Was the alumni resolution propaganda? Was the student resolution (which you lacked the testicular fortitude to sign) propaganda? Was Dean Falvey's resignation propaganda? Is pointing out BD's perpetual double-speak propaganda? Are TM's past/failed business/higher education efforts propaganda?

But I would like to correct the others: Your head isn't up your ass. You're just a spineless disgrace.

Live with that.

 
At 7:01 PM, Blogger Wolfe Tone 2007 said...

IO: Sorry I didn't put this all in one response, but I'm still catching up on what an idiot you are.

Stop trying to make a martyr of yourself. If you can't stand up for the good of the law school, at least stand up for yourself.

 
At 10:35 AM, Blogger DS said...

Hey, I asked on FUMARE too but was wondering does anybody know what the "unanimous" decision by the board was in terms of numbers, i.e., 11-0, 7-0,5-0, 3-0, or ??
Just wondering if the numbers came out because I missed this. It seems that if it were like 11-0, or some higher number given the number of people on the board it would've been announced by the BofG's in their "response."
Thanks

 
At 10:41 AM, Blogger DS said...

Info,
If you need "evidence" of what's been done e-mail me at dsmontanalaw@msn.com, and I'll try to explain some things that have been told me in confidence. I can only do it generally in some cases, as people (alumni, faculty, staff) are afraid of losing jobs, and there have been efforts by the powers that be to make this happen.
Thanks,
DS

 
At 5:46 PM, Blogger informationoverload said...

DS,

I've heard it all. I also know that students who don't share all of the views of most of the faculty and those alums and students who voted against Dobranski, the BoG and the feasibility study are afraid to voice their concerns in fear that faculty will make their law school experience miserable. There is enough shameful behavior to go around.

Good News though. The Nun who created the vatican website woke me up in a recent interview.

"While Sister Judith is quick to embrace the latest technological innovations, don't expect to see Vatican bloggers anytime soon. A blog is "so personal, such a mind dump," she says. On the Internet, the Vatican draws the line at self-indulgence. Pride, remember, is one of the seven deadly sins."

All of you, please forgive me for participating in this prideful discussion. God Bless you all and God Bless the AMSoL we all love. Everything is going to be fine.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home